Ode to the crazy randomness of playoff baseball

[msgkings322]

So What If These Aren?t The Two Best Teams In Baseball? | FiveThirtyEight

 

[Clayton]

Stats are only part of baseball. The best team always wins a 7 game series and almost always wins a 5 game series, imo.

There will be some bad calls here and there and some unlikely events happening but over the course of 4+ games, both teams have a ridiculous number of opportunities to win. Every pitch is an opportunity. Stats are mearly a predictor based on previous events with different variables.

 

[msgkings322]

Stats are only part of baseball. The best team always wins a 7 game series and almost always wins a 5 game series, imo.

There will be some bad calls here and there and some unlikely events happening but over the course of 4+ games, both teams have a ridiculous number of opportunities to win. Every pitch is an opportunity. Stats are mearly a predictor based on previous events with different variables.

I guess so, but I think it's just hard to say what 'best' means, and a 7 game series is nowhere near enough time to judge. For example, you might have the best regular season record due to being consistently good all year, staying healthy, etc (hello Angels, Nationals)...but then late in the year some team gets hot (hello Royals!) and beats you. Is that team 'better'? They were for that series obviously. But you can argue it all day long.

Which is kind of the fun of it, sports are as much about the arguing after the game as the game itself.

 

[Clayton]

I guess so, but I think it's just hard to say what 'best' means, and a 7 game series is nowhere near enough time to judge. For example, you might have the best regular season record due to being consistently good all year, staying healthy, etc (hello Angels, Nationals)...but then late in the year some team gets hot (hello Royals!) and beats you. Is that team 'better'? They were for that series obviously. But you can argue it all day long.

Which is kind of the fun of it, sports are as much about the arguing after the game as the game itself.

Yes, the Royals were better.

When constructing a team, GMs factor in everything. When playing the season, coaches are working on the best playoff roster possible. When the playoffs come around, you know who 'your guys' are and hopefully you had enough depth in the regular season to get to the playoffs without wearing 'your guys' down. The Royals catcher is worn down. Wainwright was worn down. There is a lot of luck in being in the position to be the best team but not nearly as much as say football or college basketball. Everything is weighed as risk vs reward.

And then there is pressure. Thats something you can't account for. Maybe Kershaw is just bad under pressure. Maybe Choate is just bad under pressure. Maybe Shields is just bad under pressure.

 

[msgkings322]

Yes, the Royals were better.

When constructing a team, GMs factor in everything. When playing the season, coaches are working on the best playoff roster possible. When the playoffs come around, you know who 'your guys' are and hopefully you had enough depth in the regular season to get to the playoffs without wearing 'your guys' down. The Royals catcher is worn down. Wainwright was worn down. There is a lot of luck in being in the position to be the best team but not nearly as much as say football or college basketball. Everything is weighed as risk vs reward.

And then there is pressure. Thats something you can't account for. Maybe Kershaw is just bad under pressure. Maybe Choate is just bad under pressure. Maybe Shields is just bad under pressure.

Dealing with pressure has to be a major criterion for being 'the best'. If you can't handle the escalating pressure on the way to winning a championship, you ain't the best. So perhaps the playoffs winner is indeed 'the best'. And perhaps Bumgarner is 'better' than Kershaw.

Again, it's really not a scientifically provable concept.

 

[Clayton]

And perhaps Bumgarner is 'better' than Kershaw.

This year's Bumgarner, sure. If he keeps pitching like he is then he is ending up in Cooperstown, though. Not sure if its sustainable.

The only time I think the Cardinals have been involved in a series where the best team probably didnt win was when the Cardinals beat the Phillies in the NLDS back in 2011 and it took a classic game to do so. And certainly the Rangers were about 99.9% as good as the Cardinals that year.

There was also that single game Braves fiasco with the ump making that call but the Cardinals did play the Braves in ATL against their best pitcher and then beat the Nationals, a team the Braves struggled against IIRC.

 

[Robotech]

This year's Bumgarner, sure. If he keeps pitching like he is then he is ending up in Cooperstown, though. Not sure if its sustainable.

The only time I think the Cardinals have been involved in a series where the best team probably didnt win was when the Cardinals beat the Phillies in the NLDS back in 2011 and it took a classic game to do so. And certainly the Rangers were about 99.9% as good as the Cardinals that year.

There was also that single game Braves fiasco with the ump making that call but the Cardinals did play the Braves in ATL against their best pitcher and then beat the Nationals, a team the Braves struggled against IIRC.

To put in perspective how hard it is to make it into the Hall of Fame, Bumgarner, as fantastic as he's been already, will probably need at least five more seasons as one of the top pitchers in baseball in order to have a chance of making it.

 

[Robotech]

I remember Philly fans on the Disney board keep repeating in 2010 that the Phillies were really the best team that year. Whatever, the Giants still beat them when it counted, and it's also nice to see that since then, the Giants team has held it together a lot better than the Phillies.

 

[calsnowskier]

I remember Philly fans on the Disney board keep repeating in 2010 that the Phillies were really the best team that year. Whatever, the Giants still beat them when it counted, and it's also nice to see that since then, the Giants team has held it together a lot better than the Phillies.

The comparison since is not fair. Everyone knew the Phillies were an older team, and not likely to last more than 1, maybe 2 more seasons, while the Giants were kids, just entering their window.

As for the "best" team, I think if a 7-game series ends in 4 or 5 games, there really isn't any complaints as to who "should" have won. In '12, even though game 7 was a blow out, there is no way anyone can say, with certainty, that the Giants were better than the Cards. In '10, I think a STRONG case could be made for the Braves over the Giants. They had one reserve infielder have a historically bad game, coupled with numerous bad calls by the umpires in that series that allowed the Giants to win that series in 4.

 

[mrwallace2ku]

Bumgarner reminds me of this guy, same delivery style.


Jeff Francis Statistics and History | Baseball-Reference.com

 

[StanMarsh51]

To put in perspective how hard it is to make it into the Hall of Fame, Bumgarner, as fantastic as he's been already, will probably need at least five more seasons as one of the top pitchers in baseball in order to have a chance of making it.

It's going to need to be a lot more than that, which just shows how hard it is....granted, wins are overrated, but to even get to 250 wins (which some may consider the new 300), Bumgarner would need to a little more than 12 more seasons at 15 wins a year (that would put him at 247). Unless he has Pedro-like dominance, he'll probably need a high win count around 250 to get a good amount of consideration.